3 ms·

> But we can all agree that a hamburger with actual shit in it is worse than a hamburger from Smashburger I'm sure that out of the 7 billion people living on o

> But we can all agree that a hamburger with actual shit in it is worse than a hamburger from Smashburger I'm sure that out of the 7 billion people living on our planet, at least one person genuinely likes the taste of shit. To them, this wouldn't necessarily be true (I've never had a Smashburger and I don't like the taste of shit, so I couldn't possibly make this comparison myself). Which is why it's not objectively worse. It's all based on the person eating the burger, because everyone has different likes and tastes. That's why there's never one burger option; everyone shockingly doesn't like the same things.

lern_too_spel 11y ago
Eating a burger with shit in it will likely kill you. Should I have said cyanide instead to get the point across? The point is that there are some burgers that are clearly worse than others (use your own imagination if cyanide doesn't work for you), just as there are certain actions that are clearly morally worse than others.
- mynameisvlad 11y ago
  > Should I have said cyanide instead to get the point across? No, you should have used an analogy that actually works.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    I can't help it of you don't understand the concept of an analogy. The form of this one is good X:bad X::good Y:bad Y. We're not dealing with GRE-level stuff here.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Eating a burger with shit in it will likely kill you. Preferences for death or risk of death are not exactly unknown, so, while that may be true, it isn't sufficient to establish the universal preference you've offered it to support. > Should I have said cyanide instead to get the point across? No, for the same reason. The problem isn't the example, the problem is that the point is wrong; whether or not one believes that an absolute morality exists (in whatever sense of "exists" makes sense for morality), you aren't going to any of its contents through universally-extent preferences, just as you won't for food, because preferences aren't universals.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

Eating a burger with shit in it will likely kill you. Should I have said cyanide instead to get the point across? The point is that there are some burgers that are clearly worse than others (use your own imagination if cyanide doesn't work for you), just as there are certain actions that are clearly morally worse than others.

mynameisvlad 11y ago
> Should I have said cyanide instead to get the point across? No, you should have used an analogy that actually works.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  I can't help it of you don't understand the concept of an analogy. The form of this one is good X:bad X::good Y:bad Y. We're not dealing with GRE-level stuff here.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Eating a burger with shit in it will likely kill you. Preferences for death or risk of death are not exactly unknown, so, while that may be true, it isn't sufficient to establish the universal preference you've offered it to support. > Should I have said cyanide instead to get the point across? No, for the same reason. The problem isn't the example, the problem is that the point is wrong; whether or not one believes that an absolute morality exists (in whatever sense of "exists" makes sense for morality), you aren't going to any of its contents through universally-extent preferences, just as you won't for food, because preferences aren't universals.